One lawyer for all? Not a good idea

Recently the James Sotos law firm filed Appearances for defendants in the Federal case of Scott Milliman v. the County of McHenry, Keith Nygren, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff, Undersheriff Andrew J. Zinke, Commander John L. Miller, Bryan Krause, Sgt. Steven Schmitt and Lt. Ken Nielson.

Filing Appearances means that Sotos represents the named person for whom the Appearance was filed. I haven't seen the forms themselves, but I've been told that Sotos represents all the defendants. Does that include the County?

If you were looking at the list of Defendants, which name jumps out as the most likely to be the first who ought to make sure that his lawyer is in a position to represent him (only)? If one lawyer represents several parties, and if a time comes when the parties (the defendants) are positioned against one another, will any one defendant have to be concerned about just whom his lawyer is defending?

How about Bryan Krause? Why?

For a long time, when he was an employee of the Sheriff's Department and supervisor of the Sheiriff's Department vehicle service garage, Bryan was on the inside with Nygren. Krause often drove the sheriff in parades and was seen putting up election signs. Even during the last election. I got a call one day that Bryan was out about 11:00AM on a weekday (wouldn't that have been during normal working hours?), putting up election signs for Keith on Seminary near Melody Drive. Just couldn't get there fast enough with my camera.

Nygren sold his Hebron home to Krause for a healthy amount over fair market value, and then Nygren refused to move out after the deal closed. Rumor has it that Krause is still mad at Nygren. Under those circumstances, should Krause have his own attorney?

Absolutely!

And probably every one of the Defendants should have his own separate attorney.